idiotsavant wrote:
that humans have no basic need to consume the flesh of animals.

Wrong.

There isn't a sustainable source of protein that occurs naturally in western europe all year round.

I'm not sure how that invalidates my argument. Even if you were for some reason restricting your diet in that way (and how many people do?), then that's your decision, and is optional. Humans who aren't hunter-gatherers (i.e. everyone who lives in an agricultural society) don't *need* to eat meat.

Leolian'sBro wrote:
idiot, there's no basic need for humans to see either. Your argument is painful.

Paging Ironoman

Nah seriously, that's a bit of a jump, isn't it? Humans as a species would be fucked if we all turned blind tomorrow - counts as a pretty basic need to me. Individual people? Sure, blind people can function in society just fine. But comparing eating meat directly to vision seems a bit... short-sighted.

/badum tish

kalel wrote:
That's totally different. I think your arguments are really contrived. I can completely see his point (even if I don't agree) and he's arguing it fairly and intelligently without being unneccessarily rude.

Cheers kalel. To be honest, one of the reasons I'm engaging in this conversation is that I recently turned veggie (vegan, actually) and I need some opposing viewpoints. I've read a lot of pro-vegan stuff, as you might imagine, and I could do with some well-argued pro-meat arguments